Sovereignty

by Nikky Lewis

Throughout history, indigenous citizens have faced colonization, dispossession of land, and suppression of cultural practices by colonial powers. Affirmations of indigenous sovereignty such as treaties have repeatedly been fraught with betrayals and violations. In the US, forced assimilation efforts such as the Dawes Allotment Act and other termination policies further undermine tribal sovereignty, leaving lasting scars on indigenous communities as a result. The concept of sovereignty, particularly tribal and indigenous sovereignty, holds significant implications in legal, social, political, and economic spheres, making it a cornerstone of political theory and practice throughout time. By prioritizing state-centric definitions of sovereignty, indigenous rights and autonomy are marginalized, perpetuating historical injustices and systemic inequalities.

Sovereignty essentially asks, “Who rules?” as claimed by Hudson Institute scholar John Fonte. In theory, an ideal practice of sovereignty would consist of states having complete control over themselves and their independence would not interfere with the autonomy of another self-governing state. However, this notion of sovereignty has been deemed nearly unreachable, as a collision of ideologies typically occurs and policy favors stronger political powers.

Historically, Indigenous groups have been plagued with marginilzation as the US emerged as an economically powerful and geographically expanding nation in the early 19th century. For example, The Indian Removal Act of 1830, signed into law by President Andrew Jackson, authorized the forced relocation of numerous Native American tribes from their ancestral lands to designated territories west of the Mississippi River, paving the way for the Trail of Tears. The Trail of Tears, named for the immense suffering endured by Indigenous peoples during their forced migration, resulted in the displacement and loss of thousands of lives stripping them of their lands, cultures, and autonomy. As of today, these Indigenous groups were never able to move back to their home lands. Their “sovereignty” has been determined by a greater power essentially contradicting what the term is about which encompasses not only political autonomy, but also the preservation of cultural identity and the ability of a people to thrive within their own territories.

In the US alone, the working definition of sovereignty is referred to as the supreme authority of a state over its territory and people. As seen from a historical and political perspective, this is nuanced when it comes to tribal nations in the country, as their way of life is governed by federal law. According to the Indigenous Environmental Network, tribal sovereignty in the US is described in the quote:

Indian reservations are recognized as what can be termed “nations within.” Each has its own government and sovereign powers to make laws, tax, etc. and most also have their own tribal justice system, also based upon their inherent powers. As a result of this status, many programs of a general nature to states and their subdivisions do not apply to Indian nations unless specifically mentioned or for which there is specific legislation directed toward Indian nations.

Given this, we can gain the understanding that tribal nations within the US are not necessarily granted additional rights, but rather serve as an acknowledgement of the existing rights on the end of each party. This is problematic because Indigenous peoples are not seeking special privileges or favors from the U.S. government but rather asserting their inherent rights as distinct political entities. While this is a goal from tribal nations, it is important to note that in these instances they are dependent on the US in many ways logistically such as healthcare and utilities, just to name a few. These lead to the conclusion that as of today, the true idea of sovereignty does not exist among these groups. In Share America’s article on sovereignty, President Trump told the U.N., “We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy.” While his speech was on sovereignty at a macro level, this phrase sheds light on the idea that stronger nations are not willing to give up their power as a compromise to another “self-governing” state.

Throughout time, political leaders have developed a subconscious bias on sovereignty being in favor of the colonizers, rather than stressing the importance of the rights of the colonized. In the US, what this looks like is the government putting the national entity first rather than indigenous groups who have occupied the land thousands of years prior to settlement. In 2004, President George Bush struggled to define Indigenous sovereignty by failing to identify who it should ultimately benefit or be geared towards. The publication Histories of Indigenous Sovereignty in Action: What is it and Why Does it Matter? looks into this crucial error in acknowledgement in the quote, “Bush erroneously characterized sovereignty as conferred by an external power rather than inherent to Indigenous nations. The exchange underscored U.S. political leaders’ unwillingness to seriously comprehend Indigenous sovereignty and reckon with its ramifications for both tribal nations and the United States.”

This is dangerous because over time, the distinctiveness of tribal political sovereignty erodes. In history, such peoples will be seen more as a group fused as one with the US, rather than being acknowledged as having their own distinct way of rule. In this confusion, people are led to believe that sovereignty in America can simply divide the population into two groups: Americans and Indigenous peoples. Sovereignty in this sense, does not take into account that these Indigenous peoples have their own working definition that they abide by, as well as the fact that Indigenous peoples constitute many distinct groups spread across and therefore, do not follow necessarily the same principles.

The idea of sovereignty being a vehicle for freedom of expression often leads to the term being used as an excuse to perpetuate racism and violent agendas. Joanne Barker in the chapter “Sovereignty” in her text Keywords for Gender and Sexuality Studies says, “White supremacists appropriate sovereignty to advance racist and misogynist ideologies of identity, belonging, freedom, and liberty. These ideologies inform and unite seemingly unrelated socio political movements, including anti abortion and anti-immigration.” These courses of action display the idea that sovereignty is often used to marginalize “inferior” groups as justification for colonization. Not only do these agendas push for colonization of land, but also promote taking advantage of the bodies of individuals in marginalized groups.

This push for such a usage of sovereignty divides people further apart rather than bringing them together which is what the term sovereignty is originally used for, a means to keep peace. With the notion of peace, we should ask, “If peace constitutes groups to stand down and take advantage of in order to let stronger forces take over?” Now there is a large fallacy because fighting for sovereignty would entail that sovereignty can only be remotely reached through violence. This pattern of thought is seen in actions taken against the rights of Indigenous groups as well. The misuse of sovereignty as a shield for discriminatory practices is additionally evident in the treatment of Indigenous peoples, where assertions of state sovereignty have been used to justify land theft, cultural erasure, and violence against Indigenous communities. In The Guardian’s Article What is Sovereignty: A conversation about American colonialism, writer Jaqueline Keeler examines two events: the 2016 occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge by the Bundy clan and the Dakota Access pipeline protests in North Dakota. During these events, violent actions were taken by white extremists groups and several organizations in an effort to stand their ground on which group has more authority over the other regarding land usage. For participating Indigenous groups, they were utilizing these protests to address the violations of historically established treaties such as the 1851 treaty of Fort Laramie regarding the protection/preservation of their land. The common theme of the arguments were that each side believed it was their right under the concept of sovereignty to push their agendas.

This issue places an emphasis on the importance of re-addressing colonial legacy in America going forward. Sovereignty shifts away from an idea to understand the importance of preservation of native grounds towards a prioritization in territorial control and strengthening political authority. This means of problem solving pursues the idea of “winning” sovereignty rather than using the term as a means to create a common ground or a mutual existence among each other. In addition to this, we are presented with the question of, “How can people advocate for a shift away from exploitative relationships through progressive leadership and what would it take to undergo a structural change?”

To understand the importance of moving away from state-centric definitions of sovereignty and placing an emphasis more on the collaborations for repair within the term, we can examine recent measures that have allowed progress towards a more inclusive take on the keyword. For example, in February of this year, Italian energy corporation Enel Green Power lost a court battle against the Osage Nation which ruled that their 84-turbine wind farm trespassed on Osage land. Anita Hofschneider in Corporate Nights article There’s a Big Climate Cost to Failing to Recognize Indigenous Sovereignty said, “And it’s not just a U.S. trend;

Indigenous peoples around the world are fighting to enforce their rights, especially the right to free, prior, and informed consent to projects on their land — a concept enshrined in the UNDRIP. However, the U.S. hasn’t codified that into law, and compliance globally is spotty.” This quote highlights how indigenous people are now taking certain measures to prevent capitalist ideals from corrupting their way of maintaining sovereignty. On the positive side, it can be seen that federal governments are starting to take certain notice on the injustices that have occurred among Indigenous groups. Pilar Thomas, an attorney, member of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona and former deputy director of the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs at the U.S. Department of Energy said in the text, “I think tribes are starting to see that they have more leverage than they thought, and that they’ve previously exercised, over all this infrastructure that’s on their land.” However, the term sovereignty is still ambiguous on a global scale which puts a spotlight that colonial favoritism is still present.

In conclusion, the harmful impact of defining sovereignty for Indigenous groups is evident in the perpetuation of historical injustices, systemic inequalities, and barriers to self-determination. By prioritizing state-centric definitions of sovereignty, Indigenous rights and autonomy are marginalized, perpetuating colonial power structures and undermining Indigenous sovereignty. It is observed that more powerful states and the many individuals that hold on to a colonial mindset utilize sovereignty as a means to prioritize and justify control over groups they see as inferior. Another prominent danger is the concept that, if the term sovereignty continues to be confused, generations will see Indigenous peoples simply as a part of the population fused with the greater colonial power. Moving forward, it is essential to center indigenous voices, perspectives, and priorities in discussions of sovereignty, recognizing the inherent rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination, cultural preservation, and territorial autonomy. Ultimately, the recognition and protection of indigenous sovereignty are essential for promoting justice, human rights, and dignity for all peoples.

Works Cited

Share America. “Sovereignty: What it means and what it doesnt.”Share America, 23 Sep. 2019. https://share.america.gov/sovereignty-what-it-means-and-what-it-doesnt/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024.

Bonilla, Yarimar. “Unsettling Sovereignty.” Rutgers University. https://journal.culanth.org/index.php/ca/article/view/ca32.3.02/163. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024.

Wilson, Jason. “What is sovereignty? A conversation about American colonialism” The Guardian. 28 May 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/28/sovereignty-colonialism-standoffs-u s-government-jacqueline-keeler. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024.

Delucia, Christine et al. “Histories of Indigenous Sovereignty in Action: What is it and why does it matter?” OAH. https://www.oah.org/tah/native-american-history-and-sovereignty/histories-of-indigenous -sovereignty-in-action-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter/. Accessed 20 February 2024. “What is: Indigenous Sovereignty and Tribal Sovereignty.”Indigenous Environmental Network. Accessed 21 Feb. 2024.

Hofschneider, Anita. “There’s a Big Climate Cost to Failing to Recognize Indigenous Sovereignty.” Corporate Knights. 13 February 2024. https://www.corporateknights.com/leadership/big-climate-cost-of-failing-to-recognize-in digenous-rights/. Accessed 22 February 2024.

Barker, Joanne. “Keywords for Gender and Sexuality Studies.” NYU Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2tr51hm.63. 2021

National Geographic Society. “The Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears.” National Geographic. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/indian-removal-act-and-trail-tears/. Updated 29 January 2024.